ISSN 2777-0710 (online)

ISSN 2777-0702 (print)

ARTICULATING TECTONIC:
FROM ITERATION TO NEXUS

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap ARSNET, 2021, Vol. 1, No. 1, 40–55

DOI: 10.7454/arsnet.v1i1.5
ARTICULATING TECTONIC:
FROM ITERATION TO NEXUS
Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap
Universitas Indonesia
Indonesia
ARSNET, 2021, Vol. 1, No. 1, 40–55
DOI: 10.7454/arsnet.v1i1.5
Abstract
This paper explores the articulation of tectonic as a potential
basis for developing and understanding architectural programme
in the context of architectural education. The piece delivers a
reflective discussion that puts tectonic beyond the art of joining.
Instead, tectonic, which informs the way material performs,
insinuates a capacity in supporting the students to generate the
spatial programme and atmospheric quality for the development
of their architecture project. In particular, the study suggests
the importance of tectonic articulation in generating the above
spatialities. The study investigates such tectonic articulation
by reflecting through a second-year design studio project in
Universitas Indonesia, which focuses on developing dwellings
designs driven by tectonic-based architectural design method.
Through reflecting the students' projects this paper put forward
three aspects of tectonic articulation, each of which explores
the formal iteration, the tectonic-programme relationship, and
the tectonic-atmosphere relationship. The study demonstrates
contribution in understanding how tectonic is explored throughout
the design process, informing multiple stages of design.
Keywords: tectonic, programme, atmosphere, articulation, design
studio1
Correspondence Address: M. Mirza Yusuf Harahap, Department
of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia,
Kampus UI, Depok 16424, Indonesia. Email: mirzayusuf@ui.ac.id
Tectonic and its architectural capacity
Architecture understands tectonic as the art of construction
(Kim, 2009). It is a conception that puts forward the role and
performance of materials, emphasising construction as material
joins, hence the architecture. Tectonic especially put forward the
notion of understanding architecture through its intrinsic spirit.
Frampton encapsulates such an idea, suggesting that "the built
is first and foremost a construction and only later a discourse
based on surface, volume and plan" (Frampton in Barata, 1999,
p. 141). As evident through his many publications, including
Studies in Tectonic Culture, Frampton's thinking probably has
turned many of us on comprehending architecture. He invites
us to return to the fundamental understanding of architecture
which resists the over-exposure of architecture culture (Barata,
1999), arguing that "architecture is as much about structure and
construction as it is about spatial experience" (Hensel & Cordua,
2015, p. 135).
Discussion on tectonic can help us to engage with a
broader school of thoughts. Exemplary studies reflect such a
notion through referring to a certain aspects of a particular
architectural building, usually designed by a renowned
architect. For example, Hansel and Cordua (2015) point out the
importance to revisit how tectonic emanates the discussion
on locality. Meanwhile, Tramontin (2006) chose to expand
the discussion of tectonic by extending Semper's interest in
textile—the 'textile tectonics'—and emphasises the development

41
of generative textile form for creating various topotectonics
that is "a definitive tectonics of continuous elements, which
is curious and paradoxical" (Tramontin, 2006, p. 59). Another
study by Samuel and Jones (2012) extensively discusses how
architectural elements in Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye and Hans
Scharoun's Schminke House were interacting with one another,
orchestrating the promenade in the respective houses. Another
case concerns the logical construction of architectural buildings
and their ability to revamp our perception towards the site, as
discussed by Dodds (2001). Nevertheless, one that probably
quite interesting out of all is Hansel and Cordua's article titled
Conviction Into Tectonics, in which they call out the idea of
tectonic sensibility, whereas tectonic "resides in the sensory
memories the architects evoke and in their capacity to recall
deeply stored atmospheres" (Hensel & Cordua, 2015, p. 77).
Nonetheless, these studies all resonate in an understanding
that tectonic is "a capacity of materials to realise effect"
(Benjamin, 2006, p. 29). They start with the premise that
tectonic is an art of joining (Frampton, 1995) and further coin
out that there is more to tectonic; there are consequences as
the materials joined, performed, and manipulated in specific
ways. The notions indicate the fundamental role of tectonic
as a means "to effectively utilise building materials as carriers
of architectural meaning" (Weber, 2018, p.1). On the matter,
Weber (2018) further suggests that we need to make sure such
importance is penetrated deeply in the architecture pedagogy
as tectonic is an essential language in teaching architecture.

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus

 Unfortunately, there is a limited number of discussions on
how to teach and learn tectonic in architectural education. At
least, there are two approaches known for learning tectonic
through a real-act construction (Chun & McDonald, 2002;
Erdman et al., 2002; Schwartz & Ford, 2017) and precedent study
(Schwartz, 2015; Weber, 2018). Each of the approaches offers
specific excellence. However, the studies rarely disclose and
discuss how students build up sensibility and understanding of
tectonic comprehensively throughout the process of designing
a project.
The above discussion leads us to the venture of revealing the
incorporation of tectonic further in the learning and teaching
of architecture. In achieving this aim, the study will first discuss
learning and teaching tectonics in architecture institutions to
comprehend the challenge and urgency for integrating tectonic
in the architecture pedagogy. Secondly, we will further discuss
the notion of articulating tectonic ideas as an essential act
for learning and fathoming tectonic and its consequences.
Thirdly, this paper will draw a reflective discussion on tectonic
articulations towards a project performed by students in the
context of an interior architecture studio.

Learning tectonic in architecture pedagogy

Architectural design "is not just concerned with appearances,
but also with the development of the relationships between
systems, components, ideas, and contextual influences.
42

Architecture, after all, is systemic;3 it is the weaving of

physical (structure, plumbing, construction), nonphysical
(circulation, light, security), and even metaphysical (time,
weight, embodiment) systems into spatial constructs" (Schwartz
& Ford, 2017, p. xxv). This is why tectonic discourses suggests
that one needs to step back to understand the construction of a
building before fathoming the architecture itself (Barata, 1999).
Construction, which results in the presence of surface, volume,
and plan, allows us to weave the tangible and intangible spatial
aspects that create the architecture itself. It is evident that
architecture education institutions in many parts of the world
have been attempting in ensuring that students understand
such importance.
In addressing such importance, many of the programmes
offered by architecture education institutions focus on the idea
that construction requires a bearing in mind that it is not just
a product but also a process of making (Schwartz & Ford, 2017).
Chun and McDonald (2002) briefly explain that the knowledge of
tectonic needs to be accompanied by real-act of construction.
Erdman et al. (2002) also coined out similar thinking, whereas
a hand-in experience is necessary for a student to understand
tectonic through the nature of construction of their project.
Studies conducted by Chun, McDonald, and Erdman et al. can
formulate a discussion about making as a way for a student to
understand tectonic. However, they are not quite explicit in
exposing the design development stage of the project. This is
unfortunate considering that revealing more in-depth thinking

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap

of construction—the art of joining—would provide knowledge of
the design's interwoven spatial aspects.
In contrast to the real-act of construction, studies conducted
by Weber (2018) and Scwhartz (2015) see an opportunity for
learning tectonic through a form of precedent study. In Weber's
case, students were invited to analyse the performance of a
design through plan analysis. Students investigate the design
through a series of wall studies (e.g. cladding, sliding panel).
The analysis aims to understand the spatial performance
of the surfaces, thus unfolding the spatial problems in the
precedent design. Schwartz (2015) advises a similar approach,
arguing that the precedent analysis offers excellent potential
for investigating tectonic. Such a process "involves seeking out
critical information, breaking it down into component parts,
and reassembling the necessary elements to convey specific
idea about the object or situation" (Schwartz, 2015, p. 2).
However, when it comes to a design process, the above
studies were not able to explain how the two approaches allow
the students to comprehend tectonic. There is still a question on
how students perform tectonic thinking in the design process,
delivering their thinking in a particular form of representation,
and, therefore, allows them to understand tectonic itself
gradually. Arguably, tectonic ideas need to be communicated. In
order to do so, one is required to perform tectonic articulation
as a means of visual communication of "the architectural
selection and utilisation of technically motivated, engineered

43
forms and details" (Schumacher, 2017, p. 113). As one articulates
their tectonic thinking, his/her capability on performing
tectonic as a design approach can then be evaluated. Tectonic
articulation would allow the student to project the proceeding
spatial aspects resulted from their proposed tectonic idea.

Articulating tectonic ideas

To communicate tectonic ideas, one needs to keep in mind that
tectonic gives materials to effect. The joined materials, which
then transform into surfaces, would allow a programme to work
(Benjamin, 2006).

Once a surface can effect—ie, it can bring something about—

then it can be undestood as that which works to distribute
programme. The effect will not be instrumental; rather
it will be inherent in the opreation of the surface itself. …
Once the surface can be construed either as that which
distributes programmable space, or functional concerns, or
the elements of architecture (eg, walls and columns), then
what is at work is a form of production; hence the surface
effect. (Benjamin, 2006, p. 3)

Benjamin's argument suggests that one can then regard

communicating tectonic ideas as venturing architecture
programme upon surfaces—as the result of materials' joins. In
retrospect, this indicates the first aspect of tectonic articulation
a student needs to carry out. Arguably, thinking about the

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus

 performance of tectonic makes programmatic thinking
available. As the process develops, students can project how the
architecture of their project works. After all, as future architects,
students must learn to "embrace the programme in all its
complexities, to develop denser readings of what architecture
could become" (Noero, 2018, p. 28).
However, one needs to remember that a surface of an
architectural element actually carries two different surfaces.
The first one is upon which we place a programmatic alternative,
the one that we discussed above. The second surface is the
literal surface of the element that is "the reciprocity of materials
and geometry" (Benjamin, 2006, p. 23). It means that a surface
has certain properties it brought as materials before they are
joined together—the quality of the properties might or might
not be changed after the materials meet one another. These
properties are helping the surfaces to convey a certain quality
that we regard as atmosphere. Such thinking is essential because
understanding that surface, as a result of a tectonic expression,
indicate the relation between tectonic and spatial occupation
resulting from sensorial experience. Both the material and its
geometry bring out atmosphere to space. We suggest that this
notion becomes our second aspect of tectonic articulation.
Communicating tectonic expression means that one has to
render its possible atmospherical consequences: how we might
feel when we experience the space?
Lastly, the tectonic articulation requires architects to
44

perform a comprehensive investigation before selecting the

most suitable response to the project brief (Schumacher, 2014).
For students, this means conducting an exploratory process
of joining elements and materials as an iteration of tectonic
expression which would help them decide the befitting one.
Tectonic articulation also suggests that "the selected formalism
has been derived from selected engineering logic" (Schumacher,
2014, p. 49). In consequence, students have to show the logical
thinking behind the performed iteration. Our discussion will
further be drawn with the above three aspects revolving around
the tectonic articulation to reflect how one uses tectonic
thinking in his/her design process.

Interior architecture design studio 2: Designing a dwelling

From here on, we will discuss the tectonic articulation
by reflecting through an academic project performed by the
second-year interior architecture students in a design studio 2
course at Universitas Indonesia. The brief of the project is to
design a dwelling for a small core social group: a house for a
family. The project particularly asks students to demonstrate
design as a comprehensive interrelationship between tectonic,
programmatic, and atmospheric slant. In general, the project
begins with students analysing a real family who lives in a house.
Students were asked to obtain data regarding the family, their
daily activities, and how they inhabit the house. Through the
data, the student then formulates a design proposition that will
address aspects of living that the family needed, pinpoint any

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap

problems with their current house and aspiration of a kind of
house that the family desires. The point of disembarking of the
main design process is when the students propose a design
statement as a foundation before students further engage with
tectonic exploration. Following the exploration is a process where
students interrelate the tectonic aspect with the programmatic
aspect of the design. Here, the students try to see how their
tectonic ideas would be ideal for their house programme. Lastly,
the students further explore how the spaces' atmosphere in their
house design would complete their project. Although here and
further in the following section in this paper we would discuss
our focus on tectonic articulation in a more structured manner,
the actual process of design performed by students is not linear.
Instead, there is a complex forward-backwards attitude towards
tectonic, programmatic, and atmospheric exploration.
Several students' works will explain how the studio project
aims for the students to design through tectonic thinking.
Each of the three tectonic articulation aspects that have been
previously discussed will be unfolded to extend how the students
use tectonic as the primary approach for their dwelling design.

Tectonic articulation #1: Formal iteration

In the project, students' first engagement with tectonic was
to generate various form as they explore their tectonic ideas. In
this stage, the exploration was delivered through a manual model
making, whereas the development of the tectonic idea from one

45
model to another resulted from the reflective thought that the
student obtained each time one model is finished. Interestingly,
as a set of iteration, the students showed how their tectonic idea
might be developed one complexity higher each time a model is
created. In order to articulate their tectonic, the student must
create several models until they obtain the desired tectonic
complexity. The exploration mainly aims for two things: 1) To
study the possible forms generated from student's tectonic idea,
and 2) to traverse a tectonic identity for their design.
Students' attempts to achieving the two aims can be seen
in the works of Sitaputri. In Sitaputri's work, her tectonic
exploration disembarked from a tectonic idea that focuses
on manipulating openings in the design by elevating their
positions (see Figure 1). The idea is, in particular, to respond to
the needs of the inhabitants. Such information was previously
gathered by interviewing her client—the project requires each
student to look for a family who is willing to be a client for the
project—and observing how the client inhabits their current
home. Before creating the models, Sitaputri first translated her
idea into spatial vocabularies from which she could compose
elements to make up 3D models. Sitaputri's spatial vocabularies
encompass a specific mechanism and/or rule or spatial qualities
that she needs to achieve (see Figure 2). The spatial vocabularies
were each accompanied by a simple diagram that shows how
the mechanism would work three-dimensionally. Students
were all required to perform such a task to make sure that
they have a framework for their model explorations, although

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus

 Figure 1. Lintang Kirana
Sitaputri’s initial
tectonic idea (Image
by Lintang Kirana
Sitaputri, 2020)
46

Figure 2. Lintang
Kirana Sitaputri's
spatial vocabularies
and basic models
based on the spatial
vocabularies (Image
by Lintang Kirana
Sitaputri, 2020)

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap

there was no limitation to the vocabularies. Instead, students
were encouraged to make sure that their vocabularies would
be succinct yet explorable enough. This part of the exploration
was essential as this would affect how students would achieve
the two aims of the model exploration. The success of their
iteration in achieving the two aims of the iteration stage—was
influenced by how they translate their tectonic ideas into spatial
vocabularies. As students obtained their spatial vocabularies,
the model creation could then proceed.
Students were initially briefed to create some basic models that
show how their vocabularies appear in simple 3D compositions.
From here, the process was relatively straightforward. Students
were further asked to create more complex models; the
complexity of which can be addressed by adding more elements
to the composition or further considering their tectonic idea. As
a result, by the end of the task, students would have an iteration
that shows the development of their tectonic idea in the form of Figure 3. Tectonic
3D compositions (see Figure 3). exploration by Lintang
Kirana Sitaputri (Image
by Lintang Kirana
Sitaputri, 2020)

47

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus

 Tectonic articulation #2: Surface effect, programme
Discussion on the second tectonic articulation is drawn
by looking at how the students reflected towards their
exploration models in the iteration stage. Although we decided
to explore the second tectonic articulation separately, the
process of articulating how the surfaces from the tectonic
exploration might allow for the proposed programme to work
is intertwined with the iteration process. Interestingly, the
moment the students performed the second articulation, he/
she was helping him/herself to carry on with their design
process. In particular, as suggested in the first tectonic
articulation discussion, the complexity of the exploration
was significantly influenced by how the students articulated
the tectonic-programme relation, which was then further
regarded as the surface-programme nexus. The aim of the
students in examining the relationship between the surfaces
that appear in their 3D models and the programme that might
be placed upon the surfaces was to help the students select
the most suitable form for their design. It is why the second
tectonic articulation becomes inseparable from the first one.
Together the two make up the whole iteration process.
48

Figure 4. Adika
Ramaghazy's proposed
programme (Image
by Adika Ramaghazy,
2020)

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap

 Around the same time with the stage where students
proposed the tectonic idea based on the analysis of the data
obtained from interviewing and observing their clients, the
students were also asked to propose a programme that would
address problems and aspirations of house design' needed and
wanted. Supposedly, the proposed programme would have to
insinuate how the spaces of the designed house might work.
Aspects of spatial performances and qualities became the
basis for the proposed programmes, including but not limited
to natural lighting, visibility, accessibility, inside-outside
relations, and other aspects. Students, however, could choose
the most relevant aspects that respond to their respective
clients' needs. An example of this task can be seen in Adika
Ramaghazy's work in Figure 4. Here, Ramaghazy proposed
a design programme through diagrams that inform his
programme and the responding spatial aspects, including the
spatial connectivity, flow, and the integration between the
design with the landscape.
Before going deep into the part where students realise
and make an effort to understand the tectonic-programme
relationship, the project requires the student to propose how
their tectonic idea and their programme proposition would
merge. Another Ramaghazy's works in Figure 5 shows an
example of how the students oversaw this task. The diagram
illustrates his thinking towards the attainability of his tectonic
ideas in addressing the architectural programme. In the

49
diagram, Ramaghazy showed how each of his chosen spatial
vocabularies (elevating space, centralised space, and extending
beyond the façade) would explore the nexus.

Figure 5. Adika
Ramaghazy's analysis
on the relationship
between his tectonic
idea and the proposed
programme for his
house design (Image
by Adika Ramaghazy,
2020)

Further in the process of the 3D model exploration stage,

the tectonic-programme relationship becomes a surface-
programme nexus. The project requires the student to observe
and analyse their models and imagine themselves being

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus

 inside their models. The analysis was delivered in the form of
diagrams that incorporate architectural drawings such as plan
and section. Ramaghazy's works in Figure 6 show his attempt
on revealing the surface-programme nexus of his 3D models.
In Ramaghazy's analytical diagrams, we can see how he tried
to understand how the spaces within each of his models—
indicated in the image as a sequence from Model 1, Model 2,
Model 3, to Model Proporsional (Proportional Model)—giving
ways for various spatial performances which correspond to his
proposed programme to emerge. The section and plan drawings
that Ramaghazy used in his analysis allow him to interpret the Figure 6. Adika
possible spatial relations better. All of the students were inquired Ramaghazy's analysis
to do the same level of analysis. Students repeatedly analysed on surface-programme
a model right after they made it, learnt from it, and used the nexus (Image by Adika
knowledge to create another tectonic model. Ramaghazy, 2020)
50

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap

Tectonic articulation #3: Surface effect, atmosphere
The last tectonic articulation focuses on students' attempt
to reveal another form of consequential nexus of the tectonic-
programme relationship, that is surface-atmosphere. In the
process, student were actually thinking through such notion
around the same time when they analyse their models for
understanding the surface-programme nexus. In the process,
tutors encouraged the students to do so, although the portion
of focusing on the third tectonic articulation mostly lies in the
latter stage of the overall design process, that was when the
students became more firm with their explored form. Surface-
atmosphere nexus appear as the students were asked to look at
how the elements composing their models bear a certain effect
and properties, hence affecting the spatial qualities of their
composition models. We can see the exploration of the two
aspects in the works of Reyna Ananda Harsono, as seen in Figure
7 and Figure 8.

Figure 7. Study of light

and shadow by Reyna
Ananda Harsono
(Photographs by Reyna
Ananda Harsono, 2020)

51

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus

 Figure 8. Reyna Ananda
Harsono's design
shows the atmosphere
of the spaces within
the house (Images and
photographs by Reyna
Ananda Harsono, 2020)
52

When it comes to the tectonic effect, students could easily

see it as they, for example, the direct light towards their models
or photographs of the spaces in a particular condition. As
shown in Figure 7, small observation towards their tectonic
exploration models would explain that different joins allow
for different spatial qualities to emanate. In Figure 7, Harsono
showed her investigation towards the performance of shadows
in her tectonic exploration models. Meanwhile, when it comes
to the surface properties, students were asked to consider the
possible use of various architectural materials in substitution to
the actual materials they use for their composition elements. As
the art of joining, tectonic was further explored as they started
to see that the joins are joins of different materials. Once they
explored the possibilities, they would then be able to see how
the atmosphere of the spaces might appear. Here, the students

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap

were invited to realise how to enhance their design through
different material composition. Students were invited to develop
their design further as they started to choose the materials for
their design. Harsono's work in Figure 8 shows her proposition
on the architecture material selection for her house design. She
accumulated her knowledge on how the shadows work as a result
of her tectonic expression, relating them to the spatial needs as
her proposed architectural programme suggests, then created
the overall image of her design that shows the performance of
the atmosphere.

Learning tectonic articulation

The reflection provides us with a piece of knowledge on
the extension of tectonic articulation and how it might be
incorporated in a design studio. As students are invited to
think through the three tectonic articulations, they will learn
to understand the importance of tectonic and its potential
to be used as a design method. In the reflection, the Interior
Architecture Design 2 Studio in Universitas Indonesia shows
how each of the three tectonic articulations offers a specific
learning experience for the students. Although, the authors must
address, again, that the three should not be seen separately but
as a set instead.
The articulation of tectonic starts through an iteration
process. From the presented student's work, we can see the
importance of tectonic exploration and selection to understand

53
the potential of tectonic as a design approach (Schumacher,
2014). As the 3D model was created from the iteration,
students started to realise the surfaces of the elements in their
composition models and how they make up various spaces in
their models. Nonetheless, the first articulation indicates the
initial part of the whole process of understanding and exploring
the tectonic. This articulation mainly introduces students with
tectonic as a strategy to compose elements. It is a critical phase
in the overall idea of learning tectonic because such thinking
helps the students to comprehend tectonic as the basis of their
design approach.
In subsequent, students were invited to realise the potential
effect of surfaces towards their proposed programme and
atmosphere—referring to the surface-programme and surface-
atmosphere nexus. Collectively, students could then seek the
most suitable form for their design. By performing the iteration
and realising the potential effect of the surfaces, students
can see potentials and flaws in their tectonic ideas (Wynn &
Eckert, 2017). The projects particularly allow the students to
think reflectively towards their works, and this is particularly
important to enhance student's understanding of tectonic as a
concept and as a knowledge that could be used as a problem-
solving in a design process (Hatchuel & Weil, 2009). The two
nexuses forms the last two of the triad articulations, indicating
the potential of integrating tectonic in architecture pedagogy. As
elaborated in previous sections, the tectonic way of thinking is
beneficial for understanding the intrinsic aspect of architecture

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus

 and its potential effects. Besides, it can also be a powerful way
to introduce the students to the wicked side of the architecture
design process that requires a balance between creativity and
logic; to think back and forth (Harahap et al., 2019). Consequently,
the tectonic articulations presented in this paper reflect the
students' attempt to construct design knowledge by directly
involving her/himself in the design process (Roggema, 2016).
Although this study only selects several students' works to
coin out the focus of this paper, the author suggests that we
need more documentation and publication that further explore
how tectonic is incorporated in our architecture education. In
particular, the study on tectonic articulation itself is still open
for further exploration. The study only reflects a single studio
project with a specific brief and constraint for the student to
follow. Different brief and design constraint might inform us on
another discrete form of tectonic articulation. For example, the
models created by the student in this paper were all produced
manually. Digitally generated models might pinpoint different
kinds of tectonic articulations.

Acknowledgement
The design project explored in this article is part of Interior
Architectural Design Studio 2 2019/2020 at the Department of
Architecture, Universitas Indonesia. The studio is coordinated
under Prof. Paramita Atmodiwirjo, while Mochammad Mirza
Yusuf Harahap acted as a tutor. Images and photographs in
54

this paper are provided by Adika Ramaghazy, Lintang Kirana

Sitaputri, and Reyna Ananda Harsono, three Interior Architecture
students within the project.

References
Barata, P. M. (1999). Kenneth Frampton apropos K., McCown, K., & Taylor, C. (2002). Designing/
tectonic: On the high-wire of a definition. arq: building/learning. Journal of Architectural
Architectural Research Quarterly, 3(2), 141–146. Education, 55(3), 174–179. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135500001925 org/10.1162/10464880252820037

Benjamin, A. (2006). Surface effects: Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in tectonic culture:

Borromini, Semper, Loos. The Journal The poetics of construction in nineteenth and
of Architecture, 11(1), 1–36. https://doi. twentieth century architecture (J. Cava, Ed.).
org/10.1080/13602360600636099 MIT Press.

Chun, A., & McDonald, T. (2002). Translation and Harahap, M. M. Y., Tregloan, K., & Nervegna, A.
materiality: The space of invention between (2019). Rationality and creativity interplay
designing and building. Journal of Architectural in research by design as seen from the
Education, 55(3), 183–185. https://doi. inside. Interiority, 2(2), 177–194. https://doi.
org/10.1162/10464880252820055 org/10.7454/in.v2i2.65

Dodds, G. (2001). Architecture as instauration. arq:
Architectural Research Quarterly, 5(02). https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1359135501001166
Erdman, J., Weddle, R., Mical, T., Poss, J. S., Hinders,
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: An
advanced formulation. Research in Engineering
Design, 19(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00163-008-0043-4

Mochammad Mirza Yusuf Harahap

Hensel, M., & Cordua, C. H. (2015). Outlook: En route International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial,
to intensely local architectures and tectonics. and Environmental Design, 12(1), 1–10. https://
Architectural Design, 85(2), 132–135. https://doi. doi.org/10.18848/2325-1662/CGP/v12i01/1-10
org/10.1002/ad.1888
Wynn, D. C., & Eckert, C. M. (2017). Perspectives on
Kim, R. (2009). The tectonically defining space of iteration in design and development. Research
Mies van der Rohe. arq: Architectural Research in Engineering Design, 28(2), 153–184. https://
Quarterly, 13(3–4), 251–260. https://doi. doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3
org/10.1017/S1359135510000102

Noero, J. (2018). Limits to freedom: Liberating form,

programme and ethics. Architectural Design,
88(3), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2297

Roggema, R. (2016). Research by design: Proposition

for a methodological approach. Urban Science,
1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1010002

Samuel, F., & Jones, P. B. (2012). The making of

architectural promenade: Villa Savoye and
Schminke House. arq: Architectural Research
Quarterly, 16(2), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1359135512000437

Schumacher, P. (2014). Tectonic articulation: Making

engineering logics speak. Architectural Design,

55
84(4), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1780

Schumacher, P. (2017). Tectonism in architecture,

design and fashion: Innovations in digital
fabrication as stylistic drivers. Architectural
Design, 87(6), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ad.2245

Schwartz, C. (2015). Investigating the tectonic:

Grounding theory in the study of precedents. The
International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial,
and Environmental Design, 10(1), 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.18848/2325-1662/CGP/v10i01/38401

Schwartz, C., & Ford, E. R. (2017). Introducing

architectural tectonics: Exploring the intersection
of design and construction. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group.

Tramontin, M. L. (2006). Textile tectonics: An

interview with Lars Spueybroek. Architectural
Design, 76(6), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ad.357

Weber, E. (2018). Developing an architect’s tectonic

philosophy through design build pedagogy:
The material language of building. The

Articulating Tectonic: From Iteration to Nexus